(NASA-CR-163859) FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THE N81 … · objects and reduce noise pollutions. ... gyro...

(NASA-CR-163859) FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THETERMINAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM (CaliforniaPolytechnic State Univ.) 65 p HC A04/MF A01

CSCL 176

N81-14991

Unclas

GRANT NO. NSG-4022j

FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THE

TERMINAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM

BY

DORAL R. SANDLIN

CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93407

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810006476 2018-07-19T09:24:10+00:00Z

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. TEST EQUIPMENT 3

Terminal Guidance System 4

Support Avionics 6

Data Recording System 6

III. TEST DESCRIPTION 7

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 8

Comparison of Straight-In ILS and Curved Approaches ... 9

Effect of Pattern Geometry 9

Effect of Pilot Experience 11

Pilot Comments Concerning TGS 12

Effect of Mind and Turbulence 13

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS 15

REFERENCES 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Interspersed Curved and Straight-In Approaches 17

2. Curved Approach Mechanization Scheme forDFRC Flight Tests 18

3. Terminal Guidance System Block Diagram 19

4. Test Aircraft (Cessna 182) 20

5. TGS Computer 21

6. Placement of TGS Control Head on Instrument Panel 22

7. TGS Control Head 23

8. Heading Error Equation 24

9. Glideslope Equation 25

10. In-Flight Recording System USNA 1980 26

11. Flight Paths for Various Turn Angles 27

12. Summary of Approaches Flown 28

13. Cooper Ratings 29

14. Pilot Ratings for Conventional ILS and CurvedApproach Tasks 30

15. Effect of Pattern Geometry During CurvedApproaches (Turn Radius) 31

16. Effect of Pattern Geometry During CurvedApproaches (Glide Slope) 32

17. Effect of Pattern Geometry During CurvedApproaches (Turn Angle) 33

IV

Figure • Page

18. Effect of Pilot Experience During Curved Approaches(3° Glide Slope, 1853 M Radius) 34

19. Effect of Pilot Experience During Curved Approaches(6° Glide Slope, 1853 M Radius) 35

20. Effect of Pilot Experience During Curved Approaches(6 Glide Slope, 914 M Radius) , 36

21. Cross Wind Effects 37

22. Curve Fit -'Run #3 38

23. Curve Fit - Run #5 39

24. Curve Fit - Run #8 40

25. Computer Constructed Curve - Run #9 in Three-DimensionalSpace 41

26. Over head Projection of Computer Constructed Curve -Run #9 42

27. Glide Slope and Heading Errors for Computer ConstructedCurve - Run #9 43


29. Overhead Projection of Computer Constructed Curve -Run #3 45







Figure Page






41. Overhead Projection of Computer Constructed Curve -Run #15 . 57


INTRODUCTION

The operation of aircraft in a terminal area has been studied

recently with the objective of identifying and finding solutions to the

problems associated with heavy traffic maneuvering in limited airspace.

Presently, aircraft arriving in a terminal area are vectored along a

straight, shallow flight path to a landing. These approach paths are

frequently over congested metropolitan areas and result in noise pollu-

tion and increased hazards both to people in the aircraft and on the

ground. The approaches are long and require considerable time and use

of fuel as well as necessitate an inefficient mix of low and high speed

traffic. In some cases, terrain prevents straight-in approaches with

shallow glideslopes. Therefore, the need has long existed for an

alternative to the shallow-glide, straight-in approach.

The recent 'introduction of STOL aircraft into service creates

new and magnifies old operational problems. These aircraft which are

capable of providing increased commercial transport between large cities

will be required to operate in limited, nonallocated airspace pene-

trated by tall buildings where noise pollution is particularly objec-

tionable. A large number of terminal operations is required of the

STOL aircraft for it to be economically viable, and speed incompatibility

with CTOL aircraft causes delays and congestion.

The recommended use of curved steep approaches to solve or

alleviate these problems has been made in many of the studies conducted.

2

Steep, curved approaches permit the routing of traffic around or, at

relatively high altitudes, over critically populated areas and tall

objects and reduce noise pollutions. A more efficient mix of slow

and high speed traffic (see Figure 1) can be obtained with improved

airspace utilization in the terminal area. More direct routing is

also possible using curved approaches resulting in both reduced fuel

costs and travel time.

Guidance along a descending curved path can be achieved with

the microwave landing system. A great deal of time and money has been

spent on studies, plans-development, hardware production, and flight

tests to identify operation problems and evaluate the system. The

microwave landing system should be operation by the mid-1980's.

The Langley and Dryden Flight Research Centers of NASA have

conducted flight tests and studies designed to obtain a better under-

standing of problems associated with curved approaches. In 1971, the

Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) conducted a flight test to inves-

tigate the feasibility of flying IFR curved landing approaches. These

tests utilized a twin-engine, general aviation aircraft with a ground-

based radar, computer, and transmitter in an arrangement shown in

Figure 2. The aircraft's position was measured by radar. The approach

geometry was stored in the computer where a comparison between the

aircraft's position and a set of preprogrammed coordinates corres-

ponding to the curved approach corridor was made and position errors

generated. Flight path errors were transmitted to the aircraft through

a data uplink and displayed on an ILS indicator. These tests led to

the development of a system contained onboard the aircraft called the

3

Terminal Guidance System (TGS) which also gives guidance along a

descending flight path to landing, but uses only the ground based

VOR/DME station. The TGS was patented by DFRC and fabricated by

Progress Aerospace Enterprises, Inc. A grant was made to the Cal

Poly Foundation at San Luis Obispo for the flight evaluation of

TGS.

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

1. Compare ILS straight-in and TGS curved approaches.

2. Determine the effects of pattern geometry on system

performance.

3. Determine the effects of wind and turbulence on system

performance.

4. Determine the effects of pilot experience on system

operation.

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the

fl ight evaluations.

TEST EQUIPMENT

The TGS consists of an analog computer unit with a control

head. The computer is connected to the altimeter, RMI, DME, and

gyro compass. Since the aircraft electrical system provides 12 volts

dc and the altimeter requires 28 volts dc, a 28 v dc power supply was

required. A 28 to 15 volt dc to dc converter was needed to provide

power for the analog amplifiers in the circuit of the computer. In

addition, a small amount of 26v 400 HZ synchro power was needed

for the synchro converter references of the Gyro Compass and RMI,

and also for an internal function module.

4

The TGS and the associated support equipment was connected as

shown in the block diagram given in Figure 3. The equipment was in-

stalled in the Cessna 182 aircraft shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows

the placement of the computer on the floor of the aircraft behind the

right front seat. Figures 6 and 7 show the placement of the control

head on the instrument panel.

Terminal Guidance System

The Terminal Guidance System is a vehicle-borne navigation

approach guidance computer which gives guidance along a curved descend-

ing flight path to a termination point over a VOR/DME Station. The

aircraft arrives over the terminal point on a selected heading and

altitude by flying along the surface of an inverted imaginary cone

half-angle of 90°-9. , where 9. is the guideslope angle selected

by the pilot. The system consists of a computer, control head, and

the support avionics. The support avionic includes an altimeter,

DME, gyrocompass, and RMI which provides aircraft positional data in

three-dimensional space. The termination point heading, altitude,

and a wind correction angle are selected on the control head and are

also provided as inputs to the computer.

The computer provides an analog solution in the form of head-

ing and glideslope error angles by solving the following equations:

'• 9eh ' 29vor - Vo - 9rw * 8wc * 360°-

9 = magnetic runway heading selected on control head.

9..,, = wing correction angle selected on control head,we

9 = magnetic heading of aircraft obtained from gyro-gy compass.

9 = magnetic bearing of aircraft from station obtainedvor from RMI.

Q . = heading error which is the difference between theaircraft heading and the tangent to the optimalflight path. See Figure 8.

9eg = 9des - arctangent " ht> .

9. = glideslope angle selected on control head.

h = absolute altitude obtained from the altimeter.

h. = desired altitude over the termination point selectedon the control head.

d = slant range distance from the aircraft to VOR/DMEStation obtained from DME.

9 = glideslope error which is the difference between9 the selected and actual glideslope angles as shown

in Figure 9.

Either these error signals or the signals plus their dif-

ferential are displayed on an indicator similar to an ILC indicator.

The option of including the differential term is provided to minimize

pilot overshoot. If the pilot flies the aircraft so that the two

needles are centered, the error angles will be equal to zero, and

the aircraft will fly along the desired flight path arriving over

the termination point on the selected heading and altitude. This

system used in conjunction with an R/NAV system which permits the

offsetting of the VOR/DME Station can be used to fly curved approaches

to a landing on any airfield in the vicinity of a VOR/DME Station.

For a more complete system description see Reference 6.

Support Avionics

The avionics necessary to the TGS includes an altimeter, RMI,

DME and Gyro Compass. A list of the types of support avionics used

follows:

1. Altimeter-Datametrics - Model 1300 Pressure Transducer:This altimeter provides 0 ± 5 VDC for 0-15 psi.Forstandard pressure at 0 ft. mean sea level, an output of4.847 VDC will result. At an altitide of 5000 feet, anoutput of 3.916 VCD will result and a linear variationbetween these altitudes is assumed. A modification ofthe TGS circuitry was made to include a null system.This system will allow adjustments to account for pre-vailing barometric conditions and different airfield ele-vations.

2. DME - King Kn 65: The DME provides nominal voltages of0.000 to 0.400 VDC for a distance of 0 to 10 nauticalmiles. Since the TGS was designed for use with a KingKn 60 which provides different nominal voltages, it wasnecessary to modify the TGS circuitry so the Kn 65 couldbe used.

3. Gyro Compass - Narco HSI-100S.

4. RMI - King KNR 660 VOR/LOC Receiver.

Data Recording System

Data was recorded on each run by the safety pilot using the

Cooper rating system. For several approaches, a portable strip chart

recorder was used to record the heading and glides!ope error signals.

The results obtained were not satisfactory, so a new data recording

system which records four times a second was fabricated and installed

for fifteen approaches using two different pilots. Figure 10 shows

a schematic of the data recording system which essentially consists

of an intel SDK-80 microcomputer, a multiplexer, and an audio tape

recorder. The synchro outputs of the gyro compass and RMI are con-

verter to D.C. voltages using a synchro to D.C. converter. These

7

two voltages plus the D.C. voltage output of the altimeter and DME were

recorded on tape. In addition, the voltage outputs of the computer,

which are the heading and glideslope error signal, were recorded.

TEST DESCRIPTION

Curved approach patterns with 0°, 90°, and 180° turns were

flown as shown in Figure 11. A turn radius of one nautical mile was

used for the 0° and 90° turn approaches. Nominal turn radii of 557

meters (1500 ft.), 414 meters (3000ft.) and 1833 meters (6000 ft.)

were used for the 180° turn approaches. For most of the approaches,

a turn of 180° was used since there was no significant difference in

the approaches of different angles except length of time spent on

the flight path. Approach entry was made using a combination of

ground check points and the VOR/DME display. Glideslope angles of -

from 3 to 9 were used, and three pilots with instrument flying time

from 200 to 600 hours flew graded approaches. Wind directions were

directly opposite and 90° cross wind to the termination heading with

velocities varying from 0-20 knots. Turbulence varied from calm to

moderate. Four different VOR/DME stations were used. Most flights

were made under simulated instrument conditions wtih a safety pilot

to record data and spot other aircraft. A data recorder that records

on magnetic tape all inputs to and outputs from the TGS computer was

used for fifteen approaches. All approaches were made at 90 mph

indicated air speed and several flap settings were used to determine

preferred aircraft configuration.

The glideslope error needle becomes extremely sensitive and

difficult to follow when within 1/2 m. DME distance from the station.

8

To eliminate the need to track the glideslope when very near the sta-

tion, minimum altitudes of 200 ft. for 3° and 400 ft. for 6° glide-

slopes were established. The altitude minimums allowed pilots to

discontinue tracking the glideslope at approximately 1/2 n.m. from

the station. This is less than the distance between the ILS glide-

slope signal generator and the point where it is no longer necessary

to track the glideslope. Usually, the ILS glideslope signal generator

is placed on the end of the runway opposite touchdown. The localizer

needle was tracked without difficult until over the station.

See Figure 12 for recapitulation of approaches flown.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the TGS flight evaluation program are included

in Figures 14 to 42. The Cooper rating system shown in Figure 13 was

used by the pilot to rate each approach, and the safety pilot evaluated

the ride quality. Fifteen approaches were made using the package that

recorded on tape all inputs to and outputs from the computer. The

tapes were inserted into a computer graphics system, and graphs were

made of the actual flight path in space. A computer program was

written to construct the zero-error, no-wind flight path, and the

two paths were graphically superimposed for easy comparison. An

overhead flight path projection was made as were graphs showing glide-

slope and heading errors as functions of DME distance. The DME signal

to the TGS contained considerable noise as shown in Figures 22, 23,

and 24. It was necessary to smooth this data using a least square

curve fitting technique before the data could be used for the graphs.

Several of the resulting graphs are shown in Figures 24 through 42.

Comparison of Straight-In ILS and Curved Approaches

Figure 14 presents a comparison of pilot ratings for curved

and straight ILS approaches with the turbulence level varying from

light to moderate. The ILS approaches were flown by pilots at the

DFRC and this data is published in Reference 6. All approaches

recorded in Figure 14 were flown by the same pilot. A glides!ope of

6°, and a turn radius of 1833 meters, and a turn of 180° was used

for the curved approaches since they were not significantly more

difficult to perform than the 3 glideslope approaches for this par-

ticular pilot. Figures 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38 show flight data that

reveal how accurately the glideslope and heading guidance can be tracked

for several different turn radii and glideslopes.

The conclusion drawn from this data is that curved approaches

of the type flown are no more difficult to fly than straight ILS

approaches.

Effect of Pattern Geometry

Approaches were flown to determine the effect of varying turn

radius, glideslope, and turn angle. Figure 15 compares the pilot

ratings for approaches using 180 turns, 6 glideslope, varying turbu-

lence level, and turn radii of 457, 914, and 1853 meters respectively.

These approaches were all flown by one pilot who had 500 hours of

instrument flying time and was the most experiences with the TGS.

Although several approaches were flown using a turn radius of 457

meters of 1/4 n.m., approaches that start within 1/2 n.m. of the sta-

tion are impractical since the published accuracy of the DME equipment

used is - 1/2 n.m.

10

Figures 25 through 33 are graphs constructed from flight data

which show a 3° glideslope, a 180° turn, a light-to-moderate turbu-

lence, a tailwind at entry of 10-20 knots, and turn diameters of 5345,

7743, and 12570 feet respectively. Inspection of the graphs of glide-

slope and heading error along with Cooper rating indicate that a turn

radius of approximately 1/2 n.m. with a glideslope of 3° can be flown

satisfactorily.

Figures 34 through 39 are computer-constructed graphs which

show a glideslope of 6°, a 180° turn, a light turbulence, a tailwind

at entry of 10 knots and turn diameters of 6621 and 10667 feet. The

glideslope and heading error graphs with the Cooper rating indicate

that turn radius of approximately 1/2 n.m. with 6° glideslope can be

accurately flown.

The conclusion drawn from Figure 15 of pilot ratings and

the computer-constructed graphs is that the TGS can be used for

guidance to fly 180° turns, curved-descending approaches of a 6°

glideslope and an approximately 1/2 n.m. turn radius.

The data of Figure 16 is for approaches for a 180° turn, a

914 meter turn radius, a light-to-moderate turbulence, and a varying

glideslope. This data indicate increased ratings with increased

glideslopes. Glideslopes of 7 can be flown by a pilot with sufficient

TGS experience. The pilot commented that the glideslope needle is

increasingly difficult to track for increasing glideslope angles.

Figure 17 compares pilot ratings for curved approaches using

a 6 glideslope, a 1853 meter turn radius, varying turbulence, and

turns of 0°, 90°, and 180°. The conclusion drawn from this data is

11that the turn angle is not a significant parameter for curved approaches.

Straight-in and 180° turn-angle approaches require approximately the

same pilot workload.

Effect of Pilot Experience

Figures 18, 19, and 20 show the effect of pilot experience on

ratings given for various curved approaches.. These three figures

show data for a 180 angle, varying turbulence levels, and pilot ex-

perience of 200 hours, 500 hours, and 600 hours instrument flying

time, and 1200 hours, 3000 hours, and 3500 hours total flying time.

Figure 18 shows data for a 3° glideslope and turn radius of

1853 meters; Figure 19 shows data for a 6 glideslope, and turn radius

of 1853 meters; and Figure 20 shows data for a 6° glideslope and turn

radius of 914 meters respectively.

Figures 40 through 42 are computer-constructed graphs which

show a 180° turn, a 6986 feet turn diameter, a 6° glideslope, moderate

turbulence and a 10 knots tailwind at entry which are typical of

several similar approaches flown by the pilot with 200 hour instrument

time and who flew curved approaches. This approach was not completed

because the pilot was having difficulty tracking the glideslope and

heading signals. The pilot gave this approach a Cooper rating of 5

(unacceptable for normal operation).

The data supports these conclusions:

1. Pilot-experience was not a factor for glideslopes up to3° and a turn radius of 1853 meters for the pilots whoflew the approaches.

12

2. Pilot-experience is a factor for a 6° glides!ope and ap-proximately 914 meter turn radius. The pilot with thelowest instrument and total flying time gave the highestpilot ratings and had difficulty flying the approaches.

Pilot Comments Concerning TGS

Several pilot comments on and opinions of the TGS were given.

One pilot commented that he thought better situation information was

needed; another pilot felt that enough situation data was available,

but the instruments displaying the data was not optimally arranged for

easy use. Figure 6 shows the arrangement of the instrument panel.

An integrated display which indicates the aircraft heading, altitude,

DME distance to the VOR station, and the localizer, and glideslope

errors would be an improvement. Pilots commented that initially a

banked referenced condition necessary to hold a curved flight path

presented some difficulty since they were accustomed to a wings-level

reference condition for ILS approaches. Several approaches were flown

before adjustments were made.

Because of the geometry of a curved, descending approach, the

descent rate necessary to remain on the glideslope varies throughout

the approach. Low descent rates are necessary initially, but higher

descent rates are required for the portion of the flight path nearest

the termination point. For a ground speed of 90 mph and a glideslope

of 3 , the rate of descent varies from 0 to 415 fpm. A constant ad-

justment of power is necessary to hold airspeed. Pilots commented

that while this condition was not difficult to deal with, it was

bothersome and increased pilot workload. Pilot comments support the

conclusion that the presence of turbulence increases the workload re-

quired for curved approaches.

13•:

The safety pilot evaluating each approach for ride qualities

commented that the curved approaches with glideslopes up to 6° were

comfortable. His opinion was that because of high rates of descent,

steeper glideslopes would be somewhat uncomfortable for the passenger.

Effect of Wind and Turbulence

The system was not designed to maintain a given track in the

presence of wind. But it was designed to bring the aircraft to a

terminal point with the appropriate flight conditions to proceed in

a straight path to the runway, which it does. However, useful infor-

mation concerning the system capabilities can be gained by evaluating

the effects of wind and turbulence on the performance of the system.

To determine the effects of winds, curved approaches were flown

using 180 turns in calm-to-moderate turbulence conditions, varying

glideslopes, and turn radii. It was observed that the bank angles

needed to hold a given turn radius increased in the down-wind portion

of the turn, and decreased in the upwind portion. The change in bank

angle is required to compensate for the group speed change caused by

winds. Steeper bank angles are required whenever the group speed

is greatest. This effect was measured and reported in Reference 6.

While the variation of bank angle will compensate for a variation of

ground speed due to winds, it does not compensate for wind drift.

Figures 26, 29, 32, 35, and 38 show the effect of wind drift caused

by a direct tailwind at flight path entry. When viewed from above,

the no-wind zero-heading error TGS generated flight path is a circle

that passes through the approach entry point and is tangent to the

runway heading at the terminal point. As indicated, the actual flight

14

path is downwind of the "no-wind" flight path. These figures were

computer-constructed from recorded flight data. The TGS does not

correct to a given flight path over the ground or for drift caused

by direct tail or head winds.

The TGS provides a wind correction control which slightly

offsets the desired runway heading to correct for cross-wind. To

use this capability, the pilot must calculate and select the desired

wind correction angle. The wind correction switch is set to the

direction of the wind across the runway, i.e.; for a wind moving from

the left across the runway while facing the direction of the landing,

the switch is set to L (left) position and the correction angle is

selected. The runway heading is decreased by the amount selected.

Figure 21 shows the flight paths that would result for a no-wind

and no-correction, no-wind with cross-wind correction, and a cross-

wind with cross-wind correction conditions. The wind correction con-

trol setting results in increased separation of the actual flight

path from the no-wind and no-wind correction path for a 90 turn and

reduced separation for the 180° turn flight path.

Several 180° turn approaches were flown with and without wind

correction angles and 90° left cross winds of 15 knots. The aircraft

drifted to the right of the flight path near, the termination point and

arrived over the termination point on a heading less than the runway

heading by about 10 . The wind correction of left 19° caused the air-

craft to cross the termination point on a heading approximately 20° less

than the runway heading. It can be concluded from the wind effects

tests and analysis that the TGS will not correct to a given path over

the ground. Wind drift causes considerable deviation from a given

15

ground path. For 180° turns with a cross wind, the wind correction

control reduces deviation for 180 turns, but increased it for 90

turns. For aircraft required to maneuver in limited airspace or along

a given flight path in order to avoid ground objects, the inability

of the TGS to correct to a given path over the ground and adequately

compensate for wind drift could limit its use.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the terminal guidance

system. The TGS is avionic equipment which gives guidance along a

curved descending flight path to a landing. A Cessna 182 was used

as the test aircraft and the TGS was installed and connected to the

altimeter, DME, RMI and Gyro Compass. Approaches were flown by three

different pilots. The conclusions drawn from these tests are:

1. When the aircraft arrives at the termination point, itis "set up"'on final approach for a landing.

2. The TGS provides guidance for curved descending approacheswith glideslopes of 6 which required, for experiencedpilots, workloads that are approximately the same as foran ILS.

3. The glideslope is difficult to track within 1/2 n.m. ofthe VOR/DME Station.

4. The system will permit, for experienced pilots, satis-factory approaches with a turn radius as low as 1/2 n.m.and a glideslope of 6 .

5. Turn angles have little relation to pilot workload forcurved approaches.

6. Pilot experience is a factor for curved approaches. Pilotswith low instrument time have difficulty flying steep ap-proaches with small turn radius.

7. Turbulence increases the pilot workload for curved ap-proaches.

16

8. The TGS does not correct to a given flight path over theground nor does it adequately compensate for wind drift.

The TGS will provide accurate guidance for curved descending

approaches which can be followed by pilots with reasonable low instru-

ment time. However, the inability to correct to a ground path and

for wind drift will limit its use in airspace where deviation from a

given flight path is critical.

LU

LUH-

h-S ILJU O

= .1]O LLcn

oor

z u.

^ £z

oLLI

XO<oDCQ.Q.

QLU>cc13U

ccoCOc/>zcc

be:znQ.D

OQ

A

ccoccccLU

zoH

OQ.

CM

UJ

o:

ou.

IDO.

OO

_

"3r-l

~Q)

•X3D

D

O 0)

tnW ^<!U C

•H -rl

Q.D. O

>-i OO -l-l0) CN

< a•H_3

19

C£l

60C•rl-o

3 4J

(U CJr-l C 13to o an) »-i C -rt

O O 4J0) (1) -rl rHa. v-l Xw O O t l l O M T ^ d ) O

a j c j i - H o J a i T J c u 4 jDil-HrH 00 r—I S CO "O JJ -rt

- - . c u o a > o a > 3S t o c o c d t o p L i j c Bto to

M

oo

Oo

inoH

Ho

Ni •»-f^ U-4

a)o erfo<r

SoO

> o-CM

r

OC )JtN 0)

4-1

O V4J (1)

> CCM O

4Jr-to n)

<J «->CM VJ 4Jt-1 -rl Ifl

< ca

«UJ

ac

COrvl

60 IT)C ^O•H «

^§

M

X•it

u-r-l>-<

•H pj4-1 Ur-l (0< Q

OO OM r-l>, MO w

SC •"4-1

O 0)o erf

Oo enV4 tno a)

CJ-a

c•H o rt o

o oV4 0)

VJ

,C

iri/i0)

u

cu

0)

i.

(J->

co

T3

JOJ

O

4-)eo

LT)CD

OP JV'CW

24

UJ

o

OLU

trODCDCLU

O

LUX

^•sj

ccOz

Ul

so z

ott <o H> 0)

<$z3CC

co

o >-oo

1 ore* .T >«1 a

* xiO = £< oc $

S; ! SO CD O

00

IUocDO

o

•\. /"-C

s^~

x*"

//

5W

O

yN

0CM

11£

-- L <D7

He

ad

ing

O<

co

« 2

Z Eo> o.« i-r" u-LL

O Oc0)0)50)

OQ

5o>c

Vo

S

•oc

D)Ck_

(DO

CO

o>

o

25

zo

OUJ

UJQ.O_jCOLUQ

-JO

CM

CM

JCO)

'oX 0a

•2 o_ 0

ucatoQ 0

UJ -2s EO <

v x:

—oQ.

Co•••(0

Term

in

JC

(9ao

Glid

es

o

(002

5•o

De

sir

e

ft•3cr

k.UJ

0ao

Glid

es

o>o0

O)

UJEC

OiZ

CD

I(t) «0

o

ct?II II

O)«j»

O)

o

CD IC -4->

•r- S-"O to CD5- (J CO T-O <J >>CU -r- 03S_ 4-> r-

Ol Q." C tO

CJ) CD'i—C to -O

O O C• — O (OCU CO> I •— ~ toCU CJ CU 4->

X> Q CDi —X3 3

S- C >i- l/>O O S_ O)

M --- - S-

1 1

cu4~>4-> OCU -r-IO "Oto 3(O eC

CU 4-*TQ C/)

i- T-

O 1—

O rescu cu

oCO

DC1—CJ

ui"I 3

TJ fc'*, 0>o -p<-> lr0> Os_ o

0)" STex

o c-!-> Oto

S- -U(O C4-> Ooo o

^^co<O

T30

i-0

4-><O

^0ecu

« cc: o i—

•i- S_ LDe -M oC ^ ^j-QJ C1J

CO>-CO

es

oCJUJ

L J00CTi

COID

O

4->Coo

cuc

U

CO

 CO3 I

E QO CO

oCJ

o00ooo

O 'o: i

Q.CJ

i.O -MQ. S_

Oi— a.O)

: t- s.: res <D

Q. toCM r—

Q.Q.3

CO

i-cuoa_

cu tor— O)o -i->^ t-o cuO 4J-I-J •»->o <a

CM

OTD

CM

I

CM

CD

o

co

5-oa.

CNJ

cvi

i

4-> Oi_ -r- tncu en s- coX •<- <DCU Q +-> Cr- S- SD. O CU O

•r- -M > S_•*-> C CO«— CT O3 o cj s_

<T3

<CCO

>LO

CO

CUC

ra O: to

CJ O!

o •<-(Oa CM03 r—

4J (_}3 OD.

' C l/l•r- 4->

to Or— >

O O4J r—

0.+ I

cu

CJ OJQ >

o oQ CJ

toi-o4->(O

a>cu

O 4->

C SO CO

UJ

Oz 27

DCDH-

LU_lO

DCIDH

ODC<

OCOu.

</)X

<Q.

IO

HI_JOz

zDC

b

28

SUMMARY OF APPROACHES FLOWN

GLIDE SLOPE

00 ANGLE

90° ANGLE

180° ANGLE1853 M RADIUS



180° ANGLE1853M RADIUS900 CROSS WIND

TOTAL

30

6

13

43

20

15

230

4°

3

50

1

60

6

8

23

25

5

15

70

4

8

80

3

5

13

go

4

10

Pilots Schlein Sandlin HewettInst. Time 200 hrs 500 hrs 600 hrs# Approaches 23 137 35

FIGURE 12

FT-13R-6929

COO

ccUJQ.OOO

Sg

§1oui

ill•5 in n.IZ CO *>

o

2O

o.o:ot/>IU

< O

- £Qi K*lij <(^ C

UJ> 0t- ?Siss «<

0 g

— ot; H** _.CC Q

^ ^% 0O 0

to to toIII UJ UJ

> • > • > •

to to toUJ UJ UI

*~

Q_J

u/ "i? . ^7 J_

i CC

°5 lS

EX

CE

LLE

NT

, IN

CLU

DE

!G

OO

D, P

LEA

SA

NT

TO

SA

TIS

FA

CT

OR

Y,

BU

TU

NP

LE

AS

AN

T

CH

AR

,

— Cvl (O

C£O

ito

s

— J o»i Hs«iuj

o

to to toUJ UJ 111>- >- >-

3 D

to t tIII " «"~

*_ Q Cu

8 8Q 0

§ §

*~ £ -* i SOto JjJ <3< Q. <jUJ O .

7 ^ ^—* COx i 5n^ ^ ^—

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE,

BUT

XVC

HA

RA

CT

ER

IST

ICS

UN

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE

FOR

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE

FOR

Ef

ON

LY1

tf Irt tD

a

og

iD

0^22UJ 1-tD <o: a:UJ UI? O-uj o

1

§= 'g iOH- ^ ^0

o o oZ 22

Oy1>J UJ0 Ij

UJ g5 5UJ to j

3 O

2 £ g2 15 0

UN

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE

EV

EC

ON

DIT

ION

1

UN

AC

CE

PTA

BLE

-D

Ar

UN

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE-U

NC

r- eo o

uo

o.UJoo

• <t2O

g

o2

3:oDoUI

t l-Js^1 **

2^> UJ

MO

TIO

NS

P

OS

S18

LYT

O P

RE

VE

NT

PIL

OT

O

OXft.oCC

w? .<u

2O

c"i H-Z CC

UICLO

to

UJ5to

h-5

<

UJo:

30

GOXX

GO

CODMQ

CO

o-.'.Q_

GOI

O

UJ

o

ce:CD

ooCD

CD

ou

ww reM £, O P-:

o ft & o(.^ ^ £J ;'1Q t "j

< CO & O 00?.; tii vfM P < QEH M g M2 i-5 Q .-3MO W f*l O

U

O

00 orH VO

O"Z

EHO.-3

w

wQ

i

O —M.J

I I I I

a:

EH2 DH WS OHW M> Do aPS ugM

EH2W Qs: MW PH> HO COpc; yp, Q

gH

PHOEHO<c[:(

WH

EH

CO

sCO

31

U

GOUJ

( )

olQ_<c( )UJ>~~>c_>CD

^ CO

^D Ma a

wEH,-lj

Qos1a; o

HH tHrtj 1

EHS as< HU TM

o ®

MW i-3t^ tjO K

CO @2; S»

M S ^Q Q (SM EH r"S[ "] V^O o r\

o Qo co O ®

<Ot@e

,ocx>ou>— •

COinCOrH

oooro

OUJCO

«=cc_

DE-i

O

O

MEH

Di

oom

r-m

_L_J I L

Ot-qHa. Q Q

O

EH

W

O

HCOWQ

EH2W

W

O

u

COMEH

CO

H

t /^C/JUJ

Do

o_

GU.I

O~~»*T>C^J

, , rf ro»•"•< I-M

rr> o

>-h- QUJ HI

f* r n

O2Wt-JJ3

§DEH

W

rtj

WQOs

rV r\m ^/

•••C i

s~* ~--ih C."< M

U ^

O ®

wD ^ 8>

W ^ ®

| 0 | I

g M O O Q

;EH r:

Oi0

oH

O

0

o>

0

CO

o Qo ^" Oco ^ X

8§or-

i

i© ©^ _ j ( •o O o

0

32

UJ

UJ

<CD_

H I i i i i i i i VP .^v

o

o;Z3CD

UJ

HO

H

a3MDO[JOH

EHIS

*v(

tuJ>OOH

M

Q

§HV)WQ

FH» "

§yo&CMsM

jvl(X0E-iU

MlHEHrtjCO

33

cou.1re<roC£iO_y-\L~L«.

<cf~*lUJ

ry*~~i(__>

CO—^p»

Q o2

"~" rij

1 — 2UJ Pi

O C_jCH

LU —CD

HU2W

ff\

§3EH

W

rfKWQ

s1« o

M EHft, 1

EHS 55J O< MU 1-1

O ®

w(i,0

enwQH

O

oVO

MQ

s -EH*PM

o

oVD^*

sro ®in WCO >< jfii§ — I ^^

^S®

@ ®§ $

^22EH

oOoorH

Oo

LU

Q_

CD

u2H !C_J 'Z.T -^— _

cd oI^n

EHO

Hd,

© ® §I • I I I i i i i

c > o o r - v o i n ' 3 ' m r > i i H

P

sMDO

2EH2W5lw£>oOnCM

H

Q

§

COWP

EH2WSWJ>OPHCMaH

XOSoEHU|CjJ

CHCOHEHrtjW

TU

RB

ULE

NC

ECODM »,_.-... —..,...,..« . _. - _ — — __— .

Q

3

M MEH EH

H <tiCO t-ia o

E

(_j<cf^\oiQ_ .OU«=C( — •)1 1 1>QC—

^ j

2§§QUJC_J

sUJQ_XUJ

CD

0_

LJ_CO

1 —

I_ULJUU_UJ

<C W EHK W >-l CMW ft UQ O Z 0O r-3 <C CO -

S CO 0i 2 vo as

P^ O W PS "*" ^SH EH Q D |S

EH i— 1 ®S re o o m O ©i-3 u o m Q O< ; H O O O C O O o ©U J ^ ^ H - H M W r s

O 9

<jb ^® OQ OCO {>

88®tfS"Wi

2: (Si ^ S8i \Sf \*v xo"|rj I 1 1 1 1 t 1 T 1

CO COPH OH

re re0 0C 0vo in

CO CO

rc re0 Oo oin o

co co

x re0 00 0

rH

t"1

rH «.

EH0

Mft Q Q

H MD CO JHa w «W Q OPS EH

EH UEH 2 rtl2 W CnW S COa w MW > EH> O <O « COOS ftft s:a HH

CO

IDCO

GOUJzrr< •>e- J

( — •>rv;ex.r-\i L i

LU>

~~*t j

<^3

*••",or^DC~1

UJCJrf5^UJ

UJQ_X

wu3W.-}D

§mDEH

WEHrt*r£wQoy>a»1

« OH E-t

g-tS E^1 O< Hu K?

O ®

\

w w

COD

Q

3,-»

W EHW hi t<ft O0 ?3 0

W f~i%H^ •— — — ^

§ ^

~^

Q DH EH StU o ro

o in0 CO CO

§ @@

{55@

OWOt iW

0 ®

S SH H

• JEH <rtCO E-*S^ OM £H

CO COK p;K IT!

0 00 0vo m

M

CO CO

w ao o0 0m o

ro

co co

o_LI-CD

HEH

CTi

o:^>cs

o oo o

u_U-uu

QgHDOpjPH

EH2Wawo&H

Q

HcowQ

EH2Waw0

ftH

JHffl0EH

rtjhCOHEHrfjCO

36

GOLU

Q_

LU

CJD

P5M<csv_5f£

u

O

TE

T

UR

BU

LE

NC

E

£?VM

WOO***1oEH

EHKOM

^

©

MOiO

CO

WQM,.3

O

o10

wMCO2

2

DEH

oOoorH

RA

DIU

S,—

EHfrj

Ooom• --

a

r-lCT»

M MEH EH

LU

LUC_X

O

Q_

U_CD

h—

I_Ui «

Li.LU

o

O

EHO

H

I I I I

O ®o ®o o

WU3

oooovom

co

o oo oin o

n

to co

o oo oCN OJ

rH

OCM

H

aW

EH2Wsw

H

H

wQ

EH2W2W

Q

H

O

O

COHH

37

COHCJLLJULu.LJJ

COODCU

0z

-*«-

CM

LU

CC

DOa.

38

a

3WQ

39

10

If->—«

iL

• i i

aR

40

O

R

CM

LUcc

O»-i0)

41

CO•:rUJ

•T.0)O

Q.C/0

(Oco

•i—toOJ

•r-Q

IO)O)

.c

(U

T3(U

-(->O3

4->to

§

r-- fj'.>O't !-UCO UJ

O-J UJUJ tli

UJ

I

<rUJrn

'.I

_l UJ<L U-

'_>_J _J<T CO

^ UJHI tZjLtl l—lUJ -i

LT>CVJ

o;^0trs

in•T,

Ioo

111 UJUJ ••_>LD 21E: uj

UJ

ID UJ »-«CXJ O H-i'V <I »—4

42

"'O

•:IUJ

C3

I

O)

oX)OJ

•»->o3i-

•4->tocoos_QJ4->3Q.

O

Lf,'

_L U,.

*•_ r.i~i £5?•• Ixt O

UJLU

O _J UJ<X <I Q-UJ O

UJ

ID UJ _JOc. I— '_D

ui

cv.1

co

T3fOCD

'T.

UJ

43

CO

Ct:

I

OJ

-oa>o

(/ICOoi.O)

CL

O

S-oi.

UJ

CD

fOai

HIQ.O

O)."2 !-

o_

CDCD10

UJ

Ct'Ju:UJ

UJu_.O....I

UJ

._ J! 'I

laJ

r-- <j'>a. uj'JJ> UJ

•S' a:OJ UJ

UJ O

i n

UJ

a;IIIin

UJ

I — i / 1 I t— i

nr o i —l">'' »— I k— <

UJ _J IT

ro

UJ

o i>j

CO O Ia: -x •

44

UJ

CO

cuo(OQ,00

cO

CO)

Ol

o_<x

=»=

C

cc.

(U

$_oX>OJ

oi.•Mt/lco

S-QJ

Q.

O

C—J

i

T'J

. UJ 'Di UJ U".'

UJ OO LU

UJ

'1.UJ

|V

COcviLUo:

UJ

OiUJOo

Qi UJUJ '_> OJai 2:2: uj •-z? _i2: n uj

O3 O2: a: -a:

UJ

U.

45

UJ

CO=»«=

c3

OH

Icu

T301

-t->u3S_

4->l/lCo

S-cu4J

Ioo

u£O

5-OI

•JO

ct:

u~> co r-")iT. LiJ '.iT'a, UJ U"i

UJUl •«O

Ul

ilj _1 UJ<r -ti a.UJ O

<X O'J _!2: '-X•— ' LU *— •

!*>••' I — 4 1 - {

CTlCM

UJ

46

C-J

CfCO=8=

01>3o-o0)

-t->O

10COos-O)

4->3Q.

OO

s_o

toS-oS-

cnc•^"OfOO)

-ac:(O

(UQ.o

tu•

o?

o.

IJ.'

O

CD

co roLU '•£.'LU Iff

iZD• H

OJUJ

LU

~j> roLU

"T7" >— • • • H—

LU

LUo_O_JCO

"7" iV t—l l—lrD LU _i :rct: »— ij •-€

Oro

u_

LU

LUOL LU E:lil O rM '"jCD ITE LU • • _Jm _i =12: r> LU »-«

O3 O 1—

47

Cx'co

O)oQ.oo

Co

O)

•r*oi

QJO»

c•I—

LT>

c3

I



UL '-i

>:-.j ujLU o

UJ

UJ (—a. _jO --XUJ

a:

— ' LiJ _J Z

h- r--LiOJ

3Q.

§

,-r-

: .<-»

UJCL uj E:UJ O '>J i±i01 rrE: uj .- _ir> _j <iIT; ~> uj >—«

Oi Cj H-2: a. <r —H' ID ii_ ^n

48

I'-LL.

=»=

c

I

O)

S-

o•ocuu13

toc:o

s_CL)

Q.

O

CO

OO)

•<~5Os_Q.

-o(OO)

s_CL)

CO

o !"-

49

CO

O;

u.

UJ

UJ

C'J•K

CD

CD'!D10

CDCD

UJUJu_

UJ' >'-.)

-TT-

<r

oCl;

UJ

UJ

LU

a-:Ot;UJ

UJ

u.o:- o.jtiJ O.JLU 10

OJ LULU Cu

Clj _J LU--X --X 0-LU O:r _j _j

Ct t~

UJ

10 _J

it; LULU >_> O

ino-i

LJ

•_D _j <rT ~> 111 »— i

LU 4±j I —"ZL Ct: -X >-«rj ID a: zu. j— i_ri »— •

COCO

.,5.0.

1 ^

u. U-UJ

IT.

O)otoCL.

GO

(OcO

0

odJT. LU r--r-"^ LU —<

C-.J LULU O

LUO^j

t2i _J LU J—<! i

cooS-OJ

O".'

O0 I-

'_j_J

OL LJJLU O0.1 .'z:ET LU

LU

<r

IT Ji: r> Qi" 21

UJ

CO

Ctia.

C3a:

ai>s-

-aOJ4->o3S-4->I/)CO

(U

OO

o

o4->o

'<->o

Q.

T3

d)

LtiI I

U. U-

r-- co rv>a-i u.i r--

LULU

'.Jll

O _J LU

LU O

<r o-j<T t—i III

—' LU _IUl I— i_D

UJ

••'I

LOCO

UJ

52

=»te

C

I

<D

5-3

CJ

Q)

O3S-

s_O)

Q.

O

oS-

C7>c

H3O)

•oc

0)exo

t—00

cu•o I—

UJUJu.

UJ

I.J.JU-o_JO"1

LJJ

..J

I ')

UJ

••Xlil

t~ h-U_ U.

'T. UJ rro LU —

C'-J UJLU O

UJ

UJ

•••X »— «

UJ

UJ h-U_ _JO <Z._jOK _J

'-IUJ >— «

LUa. uj E:Ul O f^ O

CO c±i H-Z21 Ct.' <X •—«r> ^> OL 2:ti: H- ijj •-«

nUJccCO

ORIGINAL PAGE ISOF POOR QUALITY

53

UJ

<DOtoO.oo

roCO

OJ

•f—OI

<ucu

C•r—

CO

C

I

0)

S-3

•oOl

O3S-

a,

•M

u_r- •:•:••7i LUro LU

I.U CJ

O _J LU'•X --X li.111 i_>n: _j _j

<i ^ LLI12 E: cii~^~ tV »—4

o;r)tn

•D'-i?

Co

S-OJ

3Q.

Li.

LUO: UJLU o

CD

•^ f

a: P

5.4

ro UJ inCt. — *

XLU

OO=«=

O)

O)->o3t-4JI/ICo

CJ

QJ4J3Q.EO

CJ

co

oO)

os_Q.

fOOI

O)>o

d.

•a:

H-O

u..

>:-j uiUJ f~'i

~> '•£.<UJ

O _J LU f—<x -i a. _JLU o <rrn _i _j

<r o:> _j^*B* -* '*j«'•X •—' UJ '—'

COro

o:IDC5

55

CQ=«=

3o:

O)>i.3

<_)

-oa;+ju3s-4-></lcoos_ai4->3O.EO

c_>i-o

Ifls_oS-

CT)c

•r—•o(OOJ

•acfO

<uQ.ooo

<u•a

CDCOON

•J'.i

LL.

UJ

I

CDCDO-J

r-- CO•7', UJK' UJ

CtL• • IJ?

UJ

UJ

UJX —I

-•r —•

LUO.o_lCO

~> Ul _J ~ZL

enen

o:rjes

r--'-i>'•£>CD

UJa; uj z:UJ O M Oco 2:z: uj -- _j!D -_1 <X2! .t? U) *-•

CO O »—3T. Di <X —13 r> a: ^L

56

u.

O?ONOl

oQ.

OO

<o T-C IIo <-£(SIc.OJ

QI

O»

in

c3Di

I

(II

S_

•aa;

4->o3i.

r- o> f-a, uj —«r^' UJ -^r

O-J UJiij tij

• • L_l

ZD 'i?UJ

O —I UJ f—'•x --I a. _iLJ O '-X

I—I I I f »—4

—• UJ _J ITa: »— o •-•

cO

S-O)4-Jaa.EOO

UJ

i _

UJ

CtiLLIOO

UJ '_>

sr uj .

CD t2» h-2: ii: -<in ID ii; zO: f- L3 —<

UJ

57

h-ll- u_

O"."•:XUJ

ccc

I

0)

s-

o

=3i--pI/Ico

QJ4^3OLeoo

C.o

O0)

•r-J

£D-

T3fOOJJ^S-Ol

Li.iX<T

UJ

Ct:

r-- co r--•7, UJ '-i

•:-j ujUJ iO

UJ

UJ

<r co _j>—i ijj •—i2: o i—Oi' »-<»-!UJ _J 2Z

*.OO?>r,i?

UJ

<x

58

in=«*=

iOJ

J-

-I-Jo3

CO

OJ 1IEI 11! « -•

iE; ED LU

Ix.

r-

Oj ._! LU fr—-X <Z O_ _lLU o =rX _J _J

•••X t— I III

!H2 2Z id~7" iV t — i.~i LU _J

VO

LJ

CM

o:IDID

REFERENCES

1. Anon, Civil Aviation Research and Development Policy Study, JointDOT-NASA Report DOT TST-10-4, NASA SP-265, March 1971.

2. Anon, Final Report Contract NAS 4-2035 Terminal Guidance System,Progress Aerospace Enterprises, Inc., presented to the Dryden FlightResearch Center, Edwards AFB, California.

3. Anon, National Plan for Development of the Microwave Landing System,National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.

4. M. S. Benner, M. D. Mclaughlin, R. H. Sawyer, R. Van Gunst, andJ. J. Ryan, A Flight Investigation with a STOL Airplane Flying Curved,Descending Instrument Approach Paths, NASA TN D-7669, October 1974.

5. James E. Dieudonne, Randall D. Grove, and George G. Steinmetz,A Simulation Study of Curved, Descending, Decelerating, LandingApproaches for Transport Aircraft, NASA TN D-8190, April 1976.

6. S. W. Gee, M. R. Barber, and T. C. McMurtry, A Flight Evaluationof Curved Landing Approaches, A Dryder Flight Research Center Paper,Presented at NASA STOL Conference, Ames Research Center, California,October 1972.

7. P. C. Loschke, M. R. Barber, C. R. Jarvis, and E. K. Enevoldsen,Flight Evaluation of the Effect of Advanced Control Systems and Dis-plays on the Handling Qualities of a General Aviation Airplane, SAEPaper No. 720316, SAE National Business Aircraft Meeting, Wichita,Kansas, March 15-17, 1972.

8. R. H. Sawyer, and M. D. Mclaughlin, Simulation Studies of STOLAirplane Operations in Metropolitan Downtown and Airport Air TrafficControl Environments, NASA TN D-7740, November 1974.

9. R. K. Schaefer, and K. R. Velten, Operational Constraints forSTOL Aircraft. AIAA Paper No. 70-1238, AIAA 7th Annual Meeting andTechnical Display, Houston, Texas, October 19-22, 1970.

10. Norman S. Silsby, and Richard H. Sawyer, Airport-Area AirspaceUsed in Simulated Operations with an Experimental Powered-LiftSTOL Airplane, NASA TN D-7300, September 1973.

59

60

11. Special Committee 117, A New Guidance System for Approach andLanding, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, DocumentDO-148, December 18, 1970.

(NASA-CR-163859) FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THE N81 … · objects and reduce noise pollutions. ... gyro...

Documents

Transcript of (NASA-CR-163859) FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THE N81 … · objects and reduce noise pollutions. ... gyro...